Central Information Commission
Mrnirav Pradeep Sheth vs Director General Of Civil Aviation on 2 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000111
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000676
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000680
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000842
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000843
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000907
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000917
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000925
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000954
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000956
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001540
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/002606
F.No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002920-YA
F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/003001
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2015
Date of Decision : 02.03.2015
Appellant : Shri Nirav Pradeep Seth,
assisted by Shri Ashish Shah
Mumbai
Respondent : Shri P. Pathak, PIO/Dir.
Shri M. Parthiban, Dy. Dir.
Shri B.K.S. Rathore, Asst. Dir.
Directorate General of Civil Aviation New Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Page 1 of 6Both parties are present. The appellant vide identical RTI applications has sought for bifurcation of marks (question-wise) for the Technical General Exam along with certified copies of the corresponding examination paper to his answer sheet, for 14 different sessions of examination held, since 2009 till date. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal No. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order
000111 24.06.2013 27.06.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
000676 26.06.2013 23.07.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
000680 05.07.2013 23.07.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
000842 28.06.2013 23.07.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
000843 06.09.2013 12.09.2013 23.09.2013 17.10.2013
000907 08.08.2013 20.08.2013 30.08.2013 05.09.2013
000917 12.12.2013 17.12.2013 10.01.2014 23.01.2014
000925 08.08.2013 20.08.2013 30.08.2013 05.09.2013
000954 01.07.2013 23.07.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
000956 03.07.2013 23.07.2013 17.08.2013 29.08.2013
001540 08.04.2014 22.04.2014 13.05.2014 23.05.2014
002606 20.06.2014 27.06.2014 02.08.2014 19.08.2014
002920 19.06.2013 24.06.2013 18.07.2013 05.08.2013
003001 22.08.2014 01.09.2014 15.09.2014 13.10.2014
The abovementioned appeals, having the same subject matter, are being heard & decided together, by this common order.
The CPIO/Dir. of Airworthiness (CEO) in all the above RTI applications allowed inspection of OMR answer sheet to the appellant, but denied providing the corresponding question paper, in order to maintain secrecy and sanctity of the examination system u/s 8(1)(d). The FAA/Jt. DG upheld the CPIO's decision.
The appellant, having not cleared this examination in more than 10 attempts, is questioning the system of evaluation of his papers, which has resulted in his non-selection. The appellant stated that he cannot match the answers in his OMR answer sheet till the time he does not have the corresponding question paper to match it with. He stated that the CPIO has malafidely denied the information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He referred to the Supreme Page 2 of 6 Court's decision in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya [Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011], wherein the Court had observed that the examining bodies are not exempted under the Act and that the process of examination is not exempted under the Act. The appellant further stated that the respondent authority cannot claim the exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act in this case as he had asked information about his own candidature. He urged that if the respondents allow, he is ready to inspect the question paper, in isolation, only to verify his result.
The respondent stated that the examination conducted by DGCA is a professional examination and to maintain secrecy and sanctity of the examination system, the information sought cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He stated that the questions framed from the question bank are updated regularly on the basis of syllabus by the expert pilots of DGCA and objections, if any received, are evaluated by a team of experts. He stated that the examination conducted by DGCA for the pilots and crew members is a highly specialized discipline, the question bank of which is a narrow field. Further, the respondent stated that the question bank is prepared by their expert panel and that from those questions, the examination is conducted. The respondent referred to several decisions of the Commission in cases nos. CIC/MA/A/2007/00258, CIC/SS/A/2012/000783, CIC/SS/A/2012/000479 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902464, wherein the denial of disclosure of question paper under the RTI Act was upheld. He stated that the information cannot be provided in the larger public interest. He also stated that earlier the examination question papers used to be given to the candidates in physical form, but recently, the procedure was changed and the examination is now conducted online. The respondent apprised the Commission that the examination procedure was changed as there were many complaints regarding fake licenses obtained by candidates, which were not verified by the DGCA. He stated that in order to avoid the increasing number of incidents of aircraft crashes and for safety of passengers, the examination procedure was changed. He stated that efforts are being made to further streamline the processes. He stated that these question papers are not disclosed anywhere in the world.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the issue, in the instant case, is not about disclosure of a question paper and its corresponding answer sheet, in general, but whether the corresponding question papers of the Technical General examination conducted by DGCA, can be disclosed to the appellant. The said examination is conducted to test the professional proficiency of the prospective pilots, who while flying an aircraft, are responsible for the life and physical safety of the general public. The issue, therefore, to be adjudicated by the Commission is whether this information sought can be provided, under the Act, as the general public while flying in an aircraft, relies on the professional competency of a Pilot and an Aircraft Maintenance Licensed Engineer, who certify the airworthiness of the aircraft before flying and are responsible for ferrying the passengers safely to their destinations.
The appellant, while quoting the Supreme Court's decision in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, has urged that the question papers have to be disclosed and that the Supreme Court's decision cannot be circumvented.Page 3 of 6
The Commission takes note of the Delhi High Court's decision in AIIMS V. Vikrant Bhuria [LPA 487/2011]. The Court while minutely observing the judgement of the Apex Court in Shaunak H. Satya (supra) observed, "14. We tend to agree with the counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Apex Court in Shaunak H. Satya (supra) cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Apex Court was in the backdrop of the question papers in that case being available to the examinees during the examination and being also sold together with suggested answers after the examination. Per contra in the present case, the question papers comprises only of multiple choice questions and are such which cannot be carried out from the examination hall by the examinees and in which examination there is an express prohibition against copying or carrying out of the question papers. Thus the reasoning given by the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the present case.
15. We are satisfied that the nature of the examination, subject matter of this appeal, is materially different from the examination considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment supra. ...
16. The Sub-Dean of Examinations of the appellant in the Memorandum of this appeal has further pleaded that if question papers are so disclosed, the possibility of the examination not resulting in the selection of the best candidate cannot be ruled out. It is pleaded that knowledge of the question papers of all the previous years with correct answers may lead to selection of a student with good memory rather than an analytical mind. It is also pleaded that setting up of such question papers besides intellectual efforts also entails expenditure. The possibility of appellant, in a given year cutting the said expenditure by picking up questions from its question bank is thus plausible and which factor was considered by the Supreme Court also in the judgment aforesaid.
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder (AIR 2011 SC 3470), The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha [(1970) 1 SCC 648], The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491), Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] holding that the Courts should not interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly interfere therewith. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint Admission Board [(JAB) (2012) 1 SCC 157] observing that the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and Courts will not interfere in such processes."
(Underlined by us) Page 4 of 6 The Commission, after hearing the averments made by both the parties, concurs with the view of the respondents that the technical general examination, being a professional examination, the basis on which pilots are evaluated by a team of experts and then selected as pilots/crew members, is a highly specialized discipline. These pilots are responsible for the life and physical safety of the general public, who is relying on the professional competency of the Pilot, while flying. The respondent authority has to maintain a proper balance between the appellant's demand for question papers for the technical general examination and the safety of thousands of passengers relying on the professional proficiency of the aircraft pilots.
It has been argued that disclosure of these question papers would jeopardize the basic selection process as it would be easy for commercial organizations to disseminate questions and answers to make it easier for candidates to qualify without having acquired requisite skills and knowledge. The Commission concurs with the Delhi High Court's decision in AIIMS V. Vikrant Bhuria that knowledge of these question papers of previous sessions/years with correct answers may lead to selection of a candidate with good memory rather than an analytical mind. The conduct of selection process including examinations in such specialized areas as recruitment of pilots and crew operators is to be handled with utmost care and responsibility, in order to promote and maintain the highest level of safety and quality in civil aviation and above all, the larger public interest. The Commission, having perused the Supreme Court's decision in Shaunak H. Satya, quoted by the appellant and the decisions of the Commission, cited by the respondent, is of the view that disclosure of information sought by the appellant will not only seriously compromise the quality of the examination process but would endanger the safety of the public. In this case, the experts, i.e. the respondent authority itself, has opined that the information sought cannot be provided as it is a highly specialised and professional examination, which is disclosed nowhere in the world.
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that there is no public interest in divulging the question papers sought by the appellant for the Technical General Exam, for 14 different sessions of examination held, since 2009 till date.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Page 5 of 6(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Page 6 of 6